Roy Kronk, the man who discovered Caylee Anthony’s remains, is suing bounty hunter Leonard Padilla for defamation. Good, he deserves everything he can get! He should sue Casey and Baez as well! The claim was filed Friday in Orange Circuit Court.
The complaint seeks more than $15,000 in damages.
The lawsuit claims Padilla published false and defamatory statements about Roy Kronk over the course of two years. It says the false statements were broadcast or published, posted on the Internet and through Twitter and made on national television shows, such as Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew.
It alleges that Padilla’s statements were "done with malice" and attempted to injure Kronk’s reputation.
The lawsuit claims Padilla published false and defamatory statements about Roy Kronk over the course of two years. It says the false statements were broadcast or published, posted on the Internet and through Twitter and made on national television shows, such as Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew.
It alleges that Padilla’s statements were "done with malice" and attempted to injure Kronk’s reputation.
The following is the clam as it was filed:
ROY KRONK, Plaintiff,
v. LEONARD PADILLA,
v. LEONARD PADILLA,
Defendant. ______________________________/
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.:
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK (" Kronk” or “Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby files his Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant, LEONARD PADILLA ("Padilla” or “Defendant”), and in support thereof, state as follows:
VENUE AND JURISDICTION ALLEGATIONS
1. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, excluding attorneys' fees and
costs.
2. Venue is proper in Orange County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 47, Florida Statutes, because the claims concern and relate to events that occurred in Orange County, Florida, and such the cause of action accrued in Orange County, Florida.
3. Kronk, at all material times, was employed and working in Orange County, Florida as a meter reader for Orange County. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Kronk was acting as a good s samaritan, by doing the right thing and reporting what he found to the proper authorities. What Plaintiff Kronk found turned out to be the remains of Caylee Anthony. Plaintiff asserts that under the facts herein he is a private figure.
1
76293 v11
eFiled in the Office of Clerk of Court, Orange County Florida 2011 Jul 15 04:22 PM Lydia Gardner
4. Defendant Padilla is a self-professed professional "world famous" Bounty Hunter and "Godfather of Bail". Defendant Padilla does business in Orange County, Florida. At all relevant times, Defendant Padilla was acting as a non-media Defendant. Defendant Padilla bailed Casey Anthony out of jail in Orange County, Florida and had extensive communications and appearances in Orange County, Florida.
5. Defendant Padilla is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court as he has operated, conducted and engaged in business in the State of Florida.
6. Defendant Padilla has committed a tortious act within the State of Florida. 7. Defendant Padilla has engaged in substantial activity within the State of Florida.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8. All conditions precedent to filing this action have occurred, accrued or have been waived as a matter of law.
9. Over the course of the past two (2) years, Defendant Padilla published false and defamatorystatementsaboutPlaintiffKronk. Thepublicationsoccurredinalmosteverymediaformat imaginable and were broadcast and/or published across the country, if not the globe, via the Internet, Twitter, the news print media, and national television shows, hosted by Nancy Grace, Dr. Drew, and Jane Valez-Mitchell. Defendant Padilla's statements are too numerous to recite. However, the substance and gist of his false and defamatory statements against Roy Kronk are as follows:
(a) That Roy Kronk was involved in a conspiracy with law enforcement which resulted in him finding the remains of Caylee Anthony;
(b) That Roy Kronk was involved in a conspiracy with Casey Anthony which resulted in him finding the remains of Caylee Anthony;
(c) That law enforcement told Roy Kronk where Caylee Anthony's remains were located;
(d) That law enforcement told Roy Kronk's "girlfriend" where Caylee Anthony's remains were located;
76293 v12
2
(e) That Roy Kronk was provided information that came from Casey Anthony which resulted in his finding the remains;
(f) That Roy Kronk was somehow involved with the killing of Caylee Anthony;
(g) That Roy Kronk secreted the body or hid the body;
(h) That Roy Kronk was directed to the body by law enforcement after Defendant Padilla stated that law enforcement would have the body within two days;
(i) That Roy Kronk is connected to Casey Anthony and the Anthony family and is involved in the killing or cover-up of the crime;
(j) That Roy Kronk is a suspect, should be investigated, has something to hide, and cannot be trusted;
(k) That Roy Kronk did not see any remains in August, 2008; and
(l) That Roy Kronk was not working and doing his job on the date the remains were found.
10. In order to bolster his false and defamatory statements, Defendant Padilla contacted relatives or former acquaintances of Plaintiff Kronk to assist Defendant Padilla in the character assassination of Plaintiff Kronk.
COUNT I - DEFAMATION (ON ITS FACE)
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK (hereinafter referred to as “Kronk” or “Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, LEONARD PADILLA (“Padilla” or “Defendant”), and states as follows:
11. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 10 above, as if fully set forth herein.
12. This is an action for damages for defamation (on its face).
13. The above referenced statements made and published by Defendant were false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff.
76293 v13
3
14. Defendant made and published these false and defamatory statements against Plaintiff without reasonable care as to the truth or falsity of the statements. Defendant made and published false and defamatory statements with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.
15. Although Defendant knew or should have known that the statements were defamatory on their face, Defendant proceeded to publish the false and defamatory statements without regard to Plaintiff.
16. The actions taken by Defendant constituted unprivileged publications to third parties of the above described false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff.
17. The actions of Defendant amounted to, at minimum, negligence or gross negligence and were done with malice in an attempt to injure Plaintiff’s reputation. The above statements were made with the intent to expose Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt or charged Plaintiff with committing a crime and tended to injure Plaintiff in his business, reputation or occupation.
18. The actions of Defendant were the direct and proximate result of the damages suffered by Plaintiff as Plaintiff has suffered loss of reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, outrage and has otherwise been directly damaged by Defendant’s unprivileged actions.
19. In excess of the specific damages suffered by Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to special damages due to the special harm caused by the unprivileged publication.
20. Defendant made and published these false and defamatory statements without reasonable care to determine the falsity of the statements.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK, demands that this Court render judgment against Defendant, LEONARD PADILLA, and award all damages, including interest, costs and any and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Plaintiff, ROY KRONK, reserves the right, pursuant to §768.72, Florida Statutes, to amend his Complaint and seek
punitive damages upon the requisite predicate showing. 4
76293 v14
76293 v15
COUNT II - DEFAMATION (INNUENDO)
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK (“Kronk” or “Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, LEONARD PADILLA, individually (hereinafter referred to as “Padilla” or “Defendant”), and states as follows:
21. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 10 above, as if fully set forth herein.
22. This is an action for damages for defamation (Innuendo).
23. The above referenced statements made and published by Defendant were false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff.
24. Defendant made and published these false and defamatory statements against Plaintiff without reasonable care as to the truth or falsity of the statements, in that a proper investigation would have demonstrated to Defendant that the statements were false and misleading. Defendant's statements gave false suggestions, impressions and implications and conveyed a materially different meaning than the truth would have conveyed.
25. Although Defendant knew or should have known that the statements were defamatory (Innuendo), Defendant proceeded to publish the false and defamatory statements with malice and without regard to Plaintiff.
26. The actions taken by Defendant constituted unprivileged publications to third parties of the above described false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff.
27. The actions of Defendant amounted to, at minimum, negligence or gross negligence and were done with malice in an attempt to injure Plaintiff’s reputation. The above statements were made with the intent to expose Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt or charged Plaintiff with committing a crime and tended to injure Plaintiff in his business, reputation or occupation.
5
28. The actions of Defendant were the direct and proximate result of the damages suffered by Plaintiff as Plaintiff has suffered loss of reputation, embarrassment humiliation, outrage and has otherwise been directly damaged by Defendant’s unprivileged actions.
29. In excess of the specific damages suffered by Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to special damages due to the special harm caused by the unprivileged publications.
30. Defendant made and published these false and defamatory statements without reasonable care to determine the falsity of the statements.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK, demands that this Court render judgment against Defendant, LEONARD PADILLA, individually, and award all damages, including interest, costs and any and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Plaintiff, ROY KRONK, reserves the right, pursuant to §768.72, Florida Statutes, to amend his Complaint and seek punitive damages upon the requisite predicate showing.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK, by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 1.430, Fla.R.Civ.P., and hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
CASE NO.:
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK (" Kronk” or “Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby files his Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant, LEONARD PADILLA ("Padilla” or “Defendant”), and in support thereof, state as follows:
VENUE AND JURISDICTION ALLEGATIONS
1. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, excluding attorneys' fees and
costs.
2. Venue is proper in Orange County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 47, Florida Statutes, because the claims concern and relate to events that occurred in Orange County, Florida, and such the cause of action accrued in Orange County, Florida.
3. Kronk, at all material times, was employed and working in Orange County, Florida as a meter reader for Orange County. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Kronk was acting as a good s samaritan, by doing the right thing and reporting what he found to the proper authorities. What Plaintiff Kronk found turned out to be the remains of Caylee Anthony. Plaintiff asserts that under the facts herein he is a private figure.
1
76293 v11
eFiled in the Office of Clerk of Court, Orange County Florida 2011 Jul 15 04:22 PM Lydia Gardner
4. Defendant Padilla is a self-professed professional "world famous" Bounty Hunter and "Godfather of Bail". Defendant Padilla does business in Orange County, Florida. At all relevant times, Defendant Padilla was acting as a non-media Defendant. Defendant Padilla bailed Casey Anthony out of jail in Orange County, Florida and had extensive communications and appearances in Orange County, Florida.
5. Defendant Padilla is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court as he has operated, conducted and engaged in business in the State of Florida.
6. Defendant Padilla has committed a tortious act within the State of Florida. 7. Defendant Padilla has engaged in substantial activity within the State of Florida.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8. All conditions precedent to filing this action have occurred, accrued or have been waived as a matter of law.
9. Over the course of the past two (2) years, Defendant Padilla published false and defamatorystatementsaboutPlaintiffKronk. Thepublicationsoccurredinalmosteverymediaformat imaginable and were broadcast and/or published across the country, if not the globe, via the Internet, Twitter, the news print media, and national television shows, hosted by Nancy Grace, Dr. Drew, and Jane Valez-Mitchell. Defendant Padilla's statements are too numerous to recite. However, the substance and gist of his false and defamatory statements against Roy Kronk are as follows:
(a) That Roy Kronk was involved in a conspiracy with law enforcement which resulted in him finding the remains of Caylee Anthony;
(b) That Roy Kronk was involved in a conspiracy with Casey Anthony which resulted in him finding the remains of Caylee Anthony;
(c) That law enforcement told Roy Kronk where Caylee Anthony's remains were located;
(d) That law enforcement told Roy Kronk's "girlfriend" where Caylee Anthony's remains were located;
76293 v12
2
(e) That Roy Kronk was provided information that came from Casey Anthony which resulted in his finding the remains;
(f) That Roy Kronk was somehow involved with the killing of Caylee Anthony;
(g) That Roy Kronk secreted the body or hid the body;
(h) That Roy Kronk was directed to the body by law enforcement after Defendant Padilla stated that law enforcement would have the body within two days;
(i) That Roy Kronk is connected to Casey Anthony and the Anthony family and is involved in the killing or cover-up of the crime;
(j) That Roy Kronk is a suspect, should be investigated, has something to hide, and cannot be trusted;
(k) That Roy Kronk did not see any remains in August, 2008; and
(l) That Roy Kronk was not working and doing his job on the date the remains were found.
10. In order to bolster his false and defamatory statements, Defendant Padilla contacted relatives or former acquaintances of Plaintiff Kronk to assist Defendant Padilla in the character assassination of Plaintiff Kronk.
COUNT I - DEFAMATION (ON ITS FACE)
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK (hereinafter referred to as “Kronk” or “Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, LEONARD PADILLA (“Padilla” or “Defendant”), and states as follows:
11. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 10 above, as if fully set forth herein.
12. This is an action for damages for defamation (on its face).
13. The above referenced statements made and published by Defendant were false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff.
76293 v13
3
14. Defendant made and published these false and defamatory statements against Plaintiff without reasonable care as to the truth or falsity of the statements. Defendant made and published false and defamatory statements with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.
15. Although Defendant knew or should have known that the statements were defamatory on their face, Defendant proceeded to publish the false and defamatory statements without regard to Plaintiff.
16. The actions taken by Defendant constituted unprivileged publications to third parties of the above described false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff.
17. The actions of Defendant amounted to, at minimum, negligence or gross negligence and were done with malice in an attempt to injure Plaintiff’s reputation. The above statements were made with the intent to expose Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt or charged Plaintiff with committing a crime and tended to injure Plaintiff in his business, reputation or occupation.
18. The actions of Defendant were the direct and proximate result of the damages suffered by Plaintiff as Plaintiff has suffered loss of reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, outrage and has otherwise been directly damaged by Defendant’s unprivileged actions.
19. In excess of the specific damages suffered by Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to special damages due to the special harm caused by the unprivileged publication.
20. Defendant made and published these false and defamatory statements without reasonable care to determine the falsity of the statements.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK, demands that this Court render judgment against Defendant, LEONARD PADILLA, and award all damages, including interest, costs and any and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Plaintiff, ROY KRONK, reserves the right, pursuant to §768.72, Florida Statutes, to amend his Complaint and seek
punitive damages upon the requisite predicate showing. 4
76293 v14
76293 v15
COUNT II - DEFAMATION (INNUENDO)
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK (“Kronk” or “Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, LEONARD PADILLA, individually (hereinafter referred to as “Padilla” or “Defendant”), and states as follows:
21. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 10 above, as if fully set forth herein.
22. This is an action for damages for defamation (Innuendo).
23. The above referenced statements made and published by Defendant were false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff.
24. Defendant made and published these false and defamatory statements against Plaintiff without reasonable care as to the truth or falsity of the statements, in that a proper investigation would have demonstrated to Defendant that the statements were false and misleading. Defendant's statements gave false suggestions, impressions and implications and conveyed a materially different meaning than the truth would have conveyed.
25. Although Defendant knew or should have known that the statements were defamatory (Innuendo), Defendant proceeded to publish the false and defamatory statements with malice and without regard to Plaintiff.
26. The actions taken by Defendant constituted unprivileged publications to third parties of the above described false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff.
27. The actions of Defendant amounted to, at minimum, negligence or gross negligence and were done with malice in an attempt to injure Plaintiff’s reputation. The above statements were made with the intent to expose Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt or charged Plaintiff with committing a crime and tended to injure Plaintiff in his business, reputation or occupation.
5
28. The actions of Defendant were the direct and proximate result of the damages suffered by Plaintiff as Plaintiff has suffered loss of reputation, embarrassment humiliation, outrage and has otherwise been directly damaged by Defendant’s unprivileged actions.
29. In excess of the specific damages suffered by Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to special damages due to the special harm caused by the unprivileged publications.
30. Defendant made and published these false and defamatory statements without reasonable care to determine the falsity of the statements.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK, demands that this Court render judgment against Defendant, LEONARD PADILLA, individually, and award all damages, including interest, costs and any and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Plaintiff, ROY KRONK, reserves the right, pursuant to §768.72, Florida Statutes, to amend his Complaint and seek punitive damages upon the requisite predicate showing.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ROY KRONK, by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 1.430, Fla.R.Civ.P., and hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: July 15, 2011.
76293 v16
6
76293 v16
6
/s/ Howard S. Marks HOWARD S. MARKS, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 0750085 ABBYE E. ALEXANDER, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 0662348 BURR & FORMAN LLP 369 North New York Avenue, Third Floor Post Office Drawer 1690 (32790) Winter Park, Florida 32789 Telephone: (407) 647-4455 Facsimile: (407) 740-7063 Attorneys for Plaintiff
No comments:
Post a Comment